Pages

Friday, July 13, 2012

Mobarek Hossain
In relation to the case of Mobarek Hossain, the tribunal fixed 19th for the inspection of documents for both prosecution and defense and for passing necessary Orders. Privileged communication for the defence lawyers was allowed in Nizami’s case.

Azam's Books
Mr. Zead Al Malum, a prosecutor, came to the dais concerning the order on supplying Mr. Gholam Azam with his required books. He said that when an under trial prisoner is detained at the Prison, the Jail Authority has to consider the application of the Jail Code. When the Jail Authority has collected the books from the library or from the market, the accused has refused to take them, and claimed the house copies of those books.

Justice Nizamul Haque: Let me read out our order again. It has been stated in the order: ‘Let the Holy Quran, Tafsir, Hadis Commentary, Biography of the Prophet Hazrat Md be supplied to the accused’. It is our ruling that the books are to supplied to the accused petitioner. But your application to the Jail Authority does not mention anything about the order of the Tribunal.

Zead Al Malum: You should not say we are not complying with the Orders of the Tribunal. You might not know what is going on in the name of privileged communication. We will converse with the Jail Authority today.

Justice Nizamul Haque: The order will be given tomorrow, and the Jail authority will come today to consult with the Prosecution about the matter.

Sayedee Investigation Officer cross examination
Mizanul Islam, the defence lawyer continued the cross examination of the investigation officer, Helal Uddin. It continues from 5 June

Defence: In case of any mistakes made in
the certificates of the Public Exams, the students are usually liable for the fault y.

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: In case of any mistake the authority alters the mistake.

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: You have mentioned it in the Mark-I that Yousuf Ali Shikdar was the name of the accused petitioner’s father’s
name. Where did you get the info?

Witness: During my Investigation.

Defence: Did you collect any certificate of
the name of his father from the Union Chairman of the native village of the
accused?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you collect any certificate
from the local Upazila Chairman?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you interrogate the Union
Parishad Chairman and the Upazila Chairman regarding the name of his father?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you interrogate anyone from
Mr. Sayedee’s village?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you interrogate anyone of
Syedee’s relatives or in-laws?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you ask about the matter from
anyone of his classmates?

Witness: No.

Defence: His latest address is enlisted
under the Dhaka City Corporation, it has been mentioned in the Mark-I.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have asked the Ward Commissioner of the Dhaka City Corporation anything about the name?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you have a look to his
national id card to ascertain the name of his father?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you look at any ID Cards of the
accused?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you look through the voter
list of 1970 to check the name?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you look through the last
voter list to check the name?

Witness: No.

Defence: You have provided some of the
certificates of the petitioners to the tribunal. Have you collected those
certificates in the seizure list?

Witness: No.

Defence: When did you collect the
certificates?

Witness: [He started juggling the
documents and materials kept with him to find the answer but did not find it
after almost 10 minutes.]

Defence: You have collected all the
documents relating to the exhibit no- 151 from the election commission?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When did you send them a letter?

Witness: During the investigation I have
collected those.

Defence: The Gas Bills, Electricity Bills,
Documents of Income Tax, Tax, Holding No, the years of passing his Alim and
Dakhil exams etc are attached therewith the material exhibit no- 151.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: All those documents contains his father’s name as Mawlana
Yousuf Sayedee, there is no mention of the title Shikdar anywhere.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the year of his Dakhil
Certificate?

Witness: 1957

Defence: In his Alim certificate, the words
“Abu Noim” has been given a cross mark over it, and the title ‘Sayedee’ has
been added afterwards.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is no sign mark by the Board
authority over the cross mark?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is no mention of “Abu Noim”
in his Dakhil Certificate.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When did you go to the Madrasa
Board Authority to find out who has given the cross mark over it?

Witness: It is not in my record.

Defence: Did you send a letter to the
Madrasa Board Authority to find out what was the actual name of the accused in
his Dakhil Examination?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you visit the Madrasa from
where the accused have passed his Alim Examination?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you visit the Madrasa to
verify the date of his registration in his registration card?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you question any of his class
teachers?

Witness: No.

Defence: From where have you collected the
papers under the material exhibit no- 151?

Witness: From the Pirojpur Election
Commissioner’s Office.

Defence: You came to know about the matter
that the petitioner was a student of Sarsina Madrasa, on the day when you have
received the documents.

Witness: Not true. I knew it previously.

Defence: You have seized the Registrar of
the Sarsina Madrasa by the exhibit no- 152 and take it to your custody by the
exhibit number- 153.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: From whose hand you have seized
the Register?

Witness: From the Principal of the Madrasa,
Dr. Sorafot Ali.

Defence: In that seizure list Mr. Abdur
Razzak is also there as a witness with Dr. Sorafot Ali.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When did you record the statements
of Dr. Sorafot Ali?

Witness: On 21-9-2010

Defence: The above mentioned persons are
still working with the Sarsina Madrasa.Witness: Yes.

Defence: You have taken the Summons from
the Tribunal to make them present before the Tribunal?

Witness: Yes. They have come to Dhaka on
21-1-2012 and left Dhaka on the next day because of their sickness.

Defence: Where did they taken away for
their treatment?

Witness: At the Police Hospital.

Defence: Whether Sarsina Madrasa is
situated under the Pirojpur District?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It is not an immense impossible or an expensive task to make the persons present before tribunal.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether there is a code of conduct
for the students of Sarsina Madrasa?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether a notice has been
circulated that the students of Sarsina Madrasa are warned to refrain from the
student politics?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether have you collected the
register of those certificates?

Defence: Whether the names of the students who have passed in 1957
have been enlisted in the Registrar?

Witness: It is not there like that.

Defence: Is there any information how many
students have been awarded with the certificates in 1957?

Witness: No.

Defence: You have stated that the registrar of
those ceritificates enlist the name as Delwar Hossain Syedee. Is it true?

Witness: Not true. It has been stated as
Mostofa Delwar Hossain and his father’s name has been stated as Mawlana Yousuf
Syedee.

Defence: Whether the word Mostofa is overwritten?

Witness: Yes. It seems that- the next three
letters after the letter “M” is being overwritten.

Defence: No candidates of 1957 Dakhil
Examination from Sarsina Madrasa has been made any witness in this case.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have asked any
teachers or worker of the Madrasa who are employed on 1957?

Witness: No. I didn’t find anyone during
investigation.

Defence: The statement you have made about
Mr. Sayedee that he has been expelled from the institution will be proved
incorrect, so you didn’t made those relevant persons as the witnesses in this
case.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have made the two persons of
that Madrasa as the witnesses of this case; but if they give their deposition
before the tribunal in that case there was a chance that this false information
would come out the Tribunal, so you didn’t make them present before the
Tribunal.

Witness: Not true.Defence: You, yourself have crossed over
those 3 letters after the word “M”

Witness: Not true.

Defence: When did you take the Daily
Jonokontho of 25th January, 2001 on material exhibit no- 85?

Witness: On 21-3-2011

Defence: The report was titled as “Sayedee
ke Pirojpur theke Utkhater Shopoth” [Pledge to evict Sayedee from the Pirojpur
District]. Who was the reporter?

Witness: Shofiul Haque Mithu.

Defence: Whether the reporter is alive?

Witness: Yes. I didn’t interview him either
or made him a witness.

Defence: Whether you have gone to Daily
Jonokontho Office to find out the main report which was sent by him or whether
the published report was an edited one?

Witness: I didn’t do that

Defence: You didn’t investigate whether he
has sent the report or not?

Witness: I went.

Defence: To whom?

Witness: I have tried to interview the
reporter. Afterwards, I asked his brother and it was confirmed that he sent the report. But Mithu’s brother is not a witness so his name is not enlisted in
my record.

Defence: Whether you have collected the
phone number of Mr. Mithu?

Witness: No.

Defence: “Sayedee has been expelled because
of calling the freedom fighter’s as bastards”- it has been mentioned in the
material exhibit- 85. Where the petitioner did gave the statement? Did you
investigate?

Witness: No.

Defence: The report has mentioned a
statement of Major Ziauddin; did you interview him what he said?

Witness: Yes, I have asked him, but he
didn’t mention anything about it. He has not been made any witness.

Defence: Did you investigate into the
statement that has been published in the report (material exhibit- 85) that Mr. Sayedee gave his statement at an election rally in 1996 to create religious
tension, did you investigate about the part of the report?

Witness: No.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the
report in the name of Shocheton Alem Shomaj where 65 people were involved and among them the names of Mawlana Aminur Rahman Elahabadi; Mawlana Keramot
Ali; Mawlana Shibli Nomani; Mawlana Shirajul Haque Nurani; Mawlana Korban Ali
have been included. Did you investigate whether they have really given any
statements like that?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you investigate about the existence
of the Shocheton Alem Shomaj?

Witness: No.

Defence: In the material exhibit- 85; it
has been mentioned that Mr. Sayedee has mentioned the Judge as a Dalal of
India who has declared the Hilla Marriage as void. Did you investigate whether
he has really said so?

Witness: No.

Defence: You didn’t make the above
mentioned Alems and Major Ziauddin present before the Tribunal, because there
is a possibility that if they came it would be shown you are giving wrong information.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Some Newspapers of Bangladesh have
published some malicious news reports about Mr. Sayedee; and you without
verifying those reports have presented those as material exhibit with a
malicious intention to degrade Mr. Sayedee.

Witness: Not true.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned
till 2 P.M

Mizanul Islam said that he was feeling sick due
to fever. You have another matter. This matter may be adjourned now.

Chairman said that we
can adjourn if for today. But on next day this item will continue without
adjournment. For physical illness you should have alternative lawyers to
continue cross-examination.

About Me

This is a personal blog, and any views are solely mine. I am a Bangladesh based journalist who has since August 2010 worked as Editor, Special Reports for the Bangladesh national newspaper, New Age (see my other blog on the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com) Prior to working at New Age, between March and September 2010, I worked as a senior editor and reporter at the news website, bdnews24.com and before that I spent seven months at the Bangladesh newspaper, the Daily Star, setting up a small investigations unit. Between 2000 and 2009, I was the Executive Director of the Centre for Corporate Accountability, a UK based not-for-profit organisation concerned with workplace safety. Before that, I worked as a Television journalist and producer for about seven years working mainly for the television production company, Twenty Twenty Television in London. In 1995, I was involved in making the Royal Television Society award winning Channel Four documentary, the 'War Crimes File', a film about war crimes allegedly committed by three men during the 1971 War of Indpendence. I have lived in Dhaka since 2003.